This feels a bit too optimistic regarding programming. Or perhaps betrays an imprecise definition of programming. To me, programming is about expressing algorithms. But algorithms may be totally illegible and still work fine.

Math on the other hand is exclusively about being understood. It is ideas from math that made algorithms legible and thus made the act of programming an act of communication. If by programming you mean using notation and ideas that were borrowed from mathematics to specify algorithms, then for sure it’s communication, but only inasmuch as it was math first. If you mean only specifying algorithms, then no communication need take place; the executor of the algorithm will deterministically execute it irrespective of its ability to communicate.

There’s an ongoing debate about whether articles are a proper part of speech; the only articles in English are the and a. Some grammarians prefer “determiner”, which includes a, the, some, other, no (as in “no man”) etc. A determiner is just a word that selects/determines an element of a larger assumed universe of discourse.

Some grammarians deny the existence of determiners, as they are not found in traditional grammars of the language, with the words now considered determiners placed in other parts of speech.

At last, some actual linguistics.

The really common "determiners" are this, that, and possessive forms such as their and your.

People often call those last words (your, his) "possessive pronouns", which always confused me because they are obviously not nouns. They are actually "possessive determiners", which is quite logical. The possessive pronouns are mine, ours, etc.

The bad press was because after some people tried to call them out for not shipping features that were claimed in the release, those people were banned from further contribution/commenting on github.

And the lead dev would come into any thread on HN or Reddit and argue with people.

Only one person, who said "V must die", was banned.

Ouch. That's definitely worse than I assumed.

Probably, actually. “Primitive” societies survived the ice age. Modern societies depend on a relatively fragile system of infrastructure and many of the individuals in modern society are utterly dependent on it. Technology only works within its rightful context, and 99% of it is completely useless after infrastructural collapse.

Meanwhile, premodern societies depend on the ecosystem as a whole which tends to adapt over time; the individuals in such societies are more self sufficient in terms of ability to survive the elements.

So it’s just as likely those not dependent on modern technology will do fine against the vicissitudes of climate change as much as those who are dependent on it. At least in terms of ability to survive. At least, their expectations of survival baseline won’t change nearly as much in the face of natural disaster.

Yeah but because we have so much ressources and people we also have all in all quite some survival nerds, who could learn from all the tribes in the world and have the starting bonus of high tech. Things wpuld be fough with a society collapse, but the knowledge is out and will survive, except mass nuclear holocaust that totally amd drastically changes the climate. But then those tribes would struggle, too, if their sweet potato does not grow anymore.

private podcasting is right up there with using ChatGPT in your head.

I often hit my brain token limit

I hope you've banked plenty of resets

I suspect the u ubiquity of electron persists more because maintaining both web and desktop interfaces is somewhat simplified, and as a corollary, you don’t need a separate JS and C/C++/QML team. Qt has gotten pretty good, but JavaScript and typescript are easier to hire.

Pay for cheap labour, get a cheap product.

I thought Claude could do anything nowadays.

QML is a Javascript Superset

But it runs on Qt, which is most certainly not.

As I’ve come to understand it, standards simplify intensionally, not extensionally. For those who select a part that is compliant with a standard, more standards to choose from is better because engineers are able to make better tradeoffs; they’re not forced to select a part that does way more than the application needs thus making the product more expensive if there are lots of “competing” standards: some do less some do more.

For RV, a litany of standardized modules creates a system where each capability that the module provides will have a standard interface. No manufacturer is forced to invent extensions bespoke to their implementation, but they’re not forced to support everything the most powerful models do either.

Just my two cents.

That is given, vendors actually _know_ what exact practical applications they are building for.

Sure, the constellation of features is no longer a general purpose computer in the retail context, but rather an ASIC appliance the ends up incompatible/useless rather quickly.

Maybe Gentoo could tame that level of chaos... or people just buy ARM64 again knowing the software ecosystem already works. =3

Richard Hipp's recent talk at Software Should Work explains that AI agents have been testing SQLite and they've gotten a deluge of new bug reports from the fuzz-like testing they can do. But they do not do this in house; hobbyists and other organizations do this in their own internal agent-driven fuzzing.

The question is whether the method is sufficiently novel or specific enough to the problems/difficulties of solving a specific domain’s problems to warrant a patent.

It’s one of those kinds of patents i assume I’m violating every 100 lines of code I write.

For these kinds of project, there are a few reasons:

1. Less opportunity to get distracted by other capabilities

2. More opportunity for experimentation with a new medium

3. Targeting an aesthetic rather than a technical specification

4. Trying to escape device addiction in its various forms

5. Using arbitrary constraints to develop new forms of artistic expression